The Voice of Epidemiology

    
    


    Web EpiMonitor

► Home ► About ► News ► Jobs ► Events ► Resources ► Contact

Keynotes

Humor Quotes Wit & Wisdom EpiSource Miscellany Editor's Tips Triumphs Links Archives
 
Historical Keynote Addresses
 

Some Observations on Epidemiology and Health Policy

“Prevention is primarily the only effective method to reduce mortality and morbidity, but will have only minimal effects on total health care costs,” concludes Lewis Kuller (University of Pittsburgh), in an epidemiological analysis of health policy in the US.

Why is this so?

Speaking at a symposium at Johns Hopkins in honor of George Comstock’s 70th birthday, Dr. Kuller suggested that the amount of disease in a population is practically infinite; therefore, prevention is only likely to shift services and costs from one medical problem to another.

Infinite Disease

Dr. Kuller noted several examples in support of the observation that the supply of disease is practically infinite. Thus, the prevalence of surgical treatment for gallbladder disease varies substantially over time and over geographic area, even though the prevalence of gallbladder disease identified at post-mortem examination either as silent stones or prior cholecystectomy is exceedingly high. Another example of this phenomenon is the substantial increase of surgical treatment for cartoid artery stenosis because of increased detection efforts with no evidence of increase in the underlying prevalence of disease. The identification of new diseases (e.g., AIDS) and redefinition of symptomatology (e.g., Premenstrual Syndrome) also help to insure that the supply of disease in the population remains high. Under these circumstances, primary prevention is “unlikely to substantially decrease utilization of services or health care costs.”

Implications

Acceptance of the “infinite supply” hypothesis has important implications for epidemiologists in how they perceive the role of prevention in health policy. It means that prevention should not be sold as a means of reducing costs or utilization of services. The prime determinants of health care costs and utilization are related to methods of detection and treatment and the modification of these will most likely come from government manipulation of the health care delivery system or from increased competition, not from changes in morbidity or mortality from any specific disease.

Epidemiologist’s Role

Since prevention can make an obvious impact on morbidity and mortality, it can be sold as a means of improving the quality and length of life, and given an integral role in health policy. According to Dr. Kuller, the best approach is by a classification system based on our knowledge about the prevention and treatment of specific diseases. Under this system, the staging evolves from class 1 in which the specific etiology of a disease and its treatment are unknown to class 7 which includes diseases which are controlled primarily by environmental management. Many chronic diseases are in class 1. The principal role of the epidemiologist should be to better define the natural history and to search for risk factors. As either treatment or etiology become better defined, the epidemiologist may shift his or her research interest to such topics as evaluation of early detection methods, clinical trials of specific treatments, and modification of risk factors.

Other Tasks

As efforts are made to alter the quantity of health care to reduce costs, it is possible these changes will adversely effect health outcomes. Another important role for the epidemiologist is monitoring morbidity and mortality in defined populations to assess the extent of adverse effects, if any.

Conclusion

In his concluding remarks, Dr. Kuller commented that, “It is important to recognize that successful development of health policy requires good research and evaluation. The community remains the unit of research. The proper collection of data and its interpretation and application to preventive medicine and health service delivery are the best approaches to improve both the quality and quantity and modify the cost of health care without adversely affecting the health status of the population. New words, big dollars but fundamentally the same basic concepts that have worked so well before.”

Published February 1985 


 

 
      ©  2011 The Epidemiology Monitor

Privacy  Terms of Use  |  Sitemap

Digital Smart Tools, LLC